Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 114 (0.49 seconds)Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Pohla Singh @ Pohla Ram (D)By Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 5 May, 2004
115. Examples can be given to the application for additional
evidence filed by the landowners bearing CM-9821-22-CI-2017 in
RFA-1805-2001 titled Ram Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others,
wherein sale deed dated 02.08.1994 was sought to be brought on
record as Annexure A-1 by way of additional evidence along with an
application for exemption from filing certified copy of the same,
bearing CM-9821-CI-2017. Similarly, vide CM-6484-CI-2018 in
RFA-2095-1997, sale deeds dated 19.09.1986 and 14.10.1988, were
84 of 145
::: Downloaded on - 29-12-2018 12:27:12 :::
RFA No.1006 of 2010 & other connected appeals alongwith cross-objections -85-
sought to be placed on record as additional evidence as Annexures
A-15 & A-16, respectively and CM-6483-CI-2018 was filed seeking
exemption from filing certified copies of the said sale deeds also and
only photocopies have been sought to be placed on record.
Sarla Devi And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 October, 2013
It was held that the
same benefits be given as in Sarla Devi's case (supra), as the
44 of 145
::: Downloaded on - 29-12-2018 12:27:11 :::
RFA No.1006 of 2010 & other connected appeals alongwith cross-objections -45-
notification was same and the village was common.
Punjab State And Others vs Ram Singh And Others on 31 May, 2012
118. Even a perusal of the record of RFA-897-1996 titled
State of Punjab & others Vs. Ram Singh & others, would go on to
show that landowner-Ram Singh himself, who appeared as PW-1, in
cross-examination, admitted that there was a khad in between the
Tikkas and Village Phangota. The depth of the khad was about 400
ft. He further admitted that he had not seen the land of Jammu &
Kashmir which was acquired and that there is river between both the
lands and the width of the river was 2-4 furlongs and some part of
the land fell in the river bed. There was no bank in the said Tikka
and there were 5-7 shops. Similarly, PW-2, Jaimal Singh, Patwari
also admitted that the acquired land was 1 ½ kms from Tikka Gulial,
Tikka Dalial was at a distance of ½ km from Village Phangota and
the facilities were available in Village Phangota and not in Tikka
Dalial. On the other hand, Inderjit, Patwari deposed that the acquired
land was uneven and stony and the crop was dependent upon rain
and the value of the land was varying in every Tikka. Some area of
the acquired land also adjoined the khad which was more than 400 ft
deep, between Tikka Dalial and Phangota. It was stated that the
boundary of Tikka Dalial adjoin the river and then the boundary of
Jammu & Kashmir started.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Kartar Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 7 May, 1976
81. State Counsel pointed out from the statement of RW-1
in RFA-1948-1996 titled Kartar Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab
& others, which pertained to the notification dated 06.01.1992 that
the land was falling in Village Hardosaran and the same was situated
at a distance of 3 kms from the road and therefore, even if Dhar
Kalan was Sub-Division, there was considerable distance from the
main road. It was further pointed out that even the witness himself
admitted that there was khad in Village Phangota. It was further
clarified that there was dividing line and Phangota could not be
59 of 145
::: Downloaded on - 29-12-2018 12:27:12 :::
RFA No.1006 of 2010 & other connected appeals alongwith cross-objections -60-
compared at par with the land situated closer to the road.
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ram Singh Ex. Constable on 24 July, 1992
It is submitted
that the position was the same in the awards passed on 05.04.2008 by
the same officer which had wrongly been followed by another
officer, Shri Gulzar Mohammad, on 13.11.2013, who kept in mind
the fact that in RFA-2758-2006 titled Punjab State & others Vs. Ram
Singh, dated 23.12.2011 whereby market value, as such, had been
assessed at the said rate for the said notification and had been
upheld, which is subject matter of RFA-2573-2013 titled Punjab
State & others Vs. Dharam Singh.